1. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the
Opposition) to the Prime Minister:
Does he stand by all his statements in relation to Kim
Dotcom and the inquiry into the actions of the Government
Communications Security Bureau?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY
(Prime Minister): I refer the member to the
personal explanation I have just given to the House. At the
time I was responding to the questions I believed the
answers to be correct. However, evidence has since come to
light that suggests that the answers I gave to the House in
one specific area may well have been incorrect. I had no
intention to mislead the House and I corrected these answers
at the first opportunity.

David Shearer:
On what date did the Government Communications Security
Bureau first become aware that its surveillance of Kim
Dotcom was illegal?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The
first day that I was briefed by the Government
Communications Security Bureau about it being illegal was
likely to be the 17th.

David Shearer:
Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I think I
can predict the Leader of the Opposition’s point of order.
The member actually asked on what date the Government
Communications Security Bureau became aware that its
investigation may have been illegal, not the date on which
the Prime Minister was advised of that.

Rt Hon
JOHN KEY: I do not have that date to
hand.

David Shearer: Further to his
answers on 26 September, when he said he was unsure about
the involvement of the SIS or the other staff from the
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in the Dotcom
case, can he now confirm what involvement those staff
had?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm
all the involvements. I can confirm that the SIS played a
minor vetting role, as it always does when people make
applications. I can also confirm that when the SIS and the
Government Communications Security Bureau say things, they
do not just make it up—like some members
do.

David Shearer: Mr
Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s
question.

David Shearer: In light of his
answer to written question No. 8353, where he confirmed that
he discussed the Government Communications Security
Bureau’s illegal surveillance of Dotcom with the
Attorney-General but was unable to recall which other two
Ministers he raised the issue with, can he now recall and
tell the House who those other Ministers were?

Rt
Hon JOHN KEY: No.

David Shearer:
Why did his Acting Prime Minister sign a ministerial
certificate to suppress and cover up the Government
Communications Security Bureau’s illegal activity?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, he was not
covering something up. What actually happened was that the
Government Communications Security Bureau wanted to have its
name not in the public domain, because it believed legally
it had acted legally. It also had the paperwork to support
that. I have seen that paperwork, and the paperwork made it
quite clear it believed its activities to be
legal.

Michael Woodhouse: What is his
response to the serious allegations made by David Shearer
that “there wasn’t a video simply because they’ve
taken the hard drives and wiped it”?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: I believe that those allegations against the
Government Communications Security Bureau are extremely
serious and reflect on the integrity of the organisation and
its staff. I have been advised by the director that there
was no video—that there was never a video—and that
nothing has been deleted from the Government Communications
Security Bureau’s system. So, quite frankly, Mr Shearer
should put up or shut up. In fact, he should apologise for
his unsubstantiated—

Mr SPEAKER:
Order!

David Shearer: Mr
Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER:
Order! Order! I know the issue is a tense issue, but I want
to hear the question from the Leader of the
Opposition.

David Shearer: Which of the
following statements does he stand by in his answers about
knowledge of the Government Communications Security
Bureau’s involvement in the Kim Dotcom case: “No, I
don’t think so.”, “No, I don’t remember.”,
“Look, I don’t know. Um, you know, who knows?”,
“I’m not in a position to answer that.”, and “I
don’t remember cracking a joke about that one, because I
crack jokes all the time.”?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: In the course of my job I answer questions on
a daily basis, at length, to the media. If I am in a
position to give the correct answer, I do. If I am not, I
simply make sure that I get the correct information. David
Shearer went on to Campbell Live and said there was a video,
and it had been taken. Then he told David Fisher at the New
Zealand Herald: “Well, no, it’s been wiped, because
they’ve taken the hard drive.” Then he told Firstline it
had been erased. Now he says it is not about the video.
Apparently, it is not about the video.

David
Shearer: Has he received any information about
other potential illegal or unlawful acts by other New
Zealand Government agencies or a foreign Government agency
in the Kim Dotcom case?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY:
As the agency pointed out when the review was taking place,
there are three other cases that took place between 2009 and
2012.

David Shearer: I raise a point of
order, Mr Speaker. That was a specific question about other
agencies, not about the Government Communications Security
Bureau.

Mr SPEAKER: I think it was not
unreasonable that the question was misunderstood. I invite
the member to repeat his question.

David
Shearer: Has he received any information about
other potential illegal or unlawful acts by other New
Zealand Government agencies or a foreign Government agency
in the Dotcom case?

Jacinda
Ardern: Did the Government Communications Security
Bureau report to him on the introduction of kiosks into Work
and Income offices; if not, why not, given that under law it
is required to give advice on the security and protection of
information held by the Government?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: No. I give the member full credit for
auditioning for the new job as Leader of the Opposition,
because apparently the way—

2. METIRIA TUREI
(Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for
Social Development: Does she have confidence that
the Ministry of Social Development can keep private
information it holds confidential?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): In
relation to the Work and Income kiosks, I would have to say
no. As the member will be aware, there is an independent
investigation into that matter.

Metiria
Turei: Prior to her announcement of the vulnerable
kids information system in the white paper, did the Minister
ensure that her ministry could keep information about our
most vulnerable children confidential given that her
ministry was advised in April 2011 that this risk existed in
Work and Income offices?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: In relation to the vulnerable kids
information system, I had many meetings with not just my own
department on that, but on what the security would be around
it. I have got at least 18 months to 2 years to actually put
up a prototype and to work through what those experts in
security will be around it. We had made the decision
previous to this week that we would have an experts’
advisory group that would ensure that information was kept
secure.

Metiria Turei: Given that she
herself has leaked private details about beneficiaries to
the public, contrary to the Privacy Act, will she take
personal responsibility for creating the cavalier attitude
to privacy now evident within her office and her
ministry?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have not
leaked private information about
individuals.

Metiria Turei: Did she or
any of her staff have any involvement in the leak of Ira
Bailey’s name to the media?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: Not to my knowledge, no.

Metiria
Turei: Will she investigate whether any Ministry of
Social Development staff in her office or in the Ministry of
Social Development generally were involved in the leak of
Ira Bailey’s name to the media; if not, is this because
she herself has exhibited such a cavalier attitude to the
protection of the privacy of individuals?

Hon
PAULA BENNETT: To be fair, right now my ministry
and I are very concerned about people’s personal
information being made available through the kiosks. That is
our focus; that is the seriousness with which we are taking
that. I have zero interest in going on a bit of a witch hunt
at the moment. I want to get to the core of what this
problem is. I want to fix it, and I want the public to have
assurances that that is what we are concentrating
on.

Metiria Turei: Does
the Minister accept that her failure to respect and protect
private information has now exposed thousands of vulnerable
New Zealand children to further risk of harm and
abuse?

Hon PAULA BENNETT:
No.

Metiria Turei: How can New Zealanders
trust her oversight of her ministry’s privacy systems when
she herself has revealed blatant disregard for privacy, has
leaked the information—private information—of
individuals to the public, and was not aware that her own
kiosks posed such an enormous risk to vulnerable children,
and, in the midst of the biggest privacy drama, someone in
her office or in her ministry may be responsible for the
leaking of private citizens’ information to the
media?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Quite frankly,
I do not quite know where to start on the presumptions that
were in the member’s question. So one is that Mr Ira
Bailey phoned into the ministry, did not ask that his
information be kept confidential or anything else, and now
that his name is out there— and a lot of people knew his
name and knew that he had access to that—it is all of a
sudden a leak, right? It did not come from me. I did not
leak this information, so I actually take that as being
factually incorrect. I have not leaked people’s
information previously. I think the member
should

concentrate on what is really important here, and I
think that we are taking this very seriously, as we should.
As soon as we knew this on Sunday, and it came out, we had
locked all systems down. We are concentrating right now on
restoring the public’s confidence in our ability to hold
information.

Economic
Programme—Policies

3. KATRINA SHANKS
(National) to the Minister of
Finance: What are the main features of the
Government’s plan to build a more competitive economy
based on more savings, higher exports and less
debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of
Finance): The Government has a number of aspects to
our plan. The first is to focus on economic growth, as
illustrated by the recent publication of a series of
documents outlining our initiatives to support business
growth. The second is to focus on a path back to surplus so
that Government debt will stop increasing. The third is to
provide better public services and a more productive public
sector, and the fourth is to rebuild Christchurch.
Basically, the Government’s plan is roughly on
track.

Katrina Shanks: What results has
he seen of progress in the Government’s programme to build
a more competitive economy?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: In the face of some headwinds from the
global economy we have been able to make progress with a
number of deep-seated problems in the economy. Inflation is
under control and, as we have seen today, the cost of living
is rising by just 0.8 percent according to the CPI for
September, which came out this morning. Our fiscal policy is
roughly on track. We have growth of 2.6 percent, which is in
the range of 2 to 3 percent that we have talked about for
some time. A net 57,000 more New Zealanders now have jobs
than 2 years ago and household savings are continuing to
rise.

Katrina Shanks: What reports has he
received on the impact of the current global economic
situation and its likely impact on New
Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In recent
weeks there have been a number of forecasts relevant to the
global economy that have been more subdued than earlier on
in the year. The forecasts indicate that Europe and emerging
economies, in particular, are likely to grow more slowly
than expected. We have yet to see how that impact will flow
through to New Zealand. Treasury is going into another
forecasting round for the half-year update that will be
released in December.

Katrina Shanks:
What reports has he received on alternative policy
approaches that would leave New Zealanders worse off,
pushing up their cost of living?

Hon BILL
ENGLISH: I have been surprised at reports that
political parties that have been advocating in the past that
the cost of living was rising too rapidly are advocating,
essentially, that the Reserve Bank should start printing
money now. Of course, that would have the effect of driving
up the cost of living further, particularly for the most
vulnerable.

Dr Russel Norman: Has he seen
the 2010 IMF report entitled Rethinking Macroeconomic
Policy, which finds that “Central banks in small open
economies”—like New Zealand—“should openly recognize
that exchange rate stability is part of their objective
function.”, not just inflation targeting; and does he
agree with the IMF that the New Zealand dollar is overvalued
by about 15 percent, which is damaging the export
sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have
seen the report, and the Government has said a number of
times that the level of the exchange rate is providing quite
a strong headwind for the rebalancing of the New Zealand
economy. However, one cannot really argue about stability.
In fact, one of the issues of the exchange rate is that it
has been relatively high now for 4 or 5 years. It is to the
credit of our exporters that they have been sufficiently
resilient to be able to grow export volume and value in any
case.

Social Development, Ministry—Security of
Private Information

4. JACINDA ARDERN
(Labour) to the Minister for Social
Development: Has the Ministry of Social Development
competently managed the private information in its
charge?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social
Development): In relation to the Work and Income
kiosks, I would have to say no.

Jacinda
Ardern: Why did she not know about the
vulnerabilities raised by an IT company a year ago when
according to a letter from her to Bill English in 2009 the
roll-out of the kiosks would be monitored by both her and
her chief executive closely?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: Because it is very operational. It was the
IT division within the Ministry of Social Development that
did it, and it was an operational issue.

Jacinda
Ardern: How can the public have any faith in her
plans to establish a database of vulnerable children, even
if it takes a year to roll out, given that the latest
failure was developed internally, tested externally, and
supposedly monitored by her?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: The member can keep saying that but it is
factually not true in the end. It is an operational matter
as far as the security of the systems, and that is where it
lies. The vulnerable kids information system is going to be
a very, very different system. Firstly, it is password
protected, so only certain people have access to it, but I
do admit that it needs absolutely the right checks and
balances in place. I will have the right experts within the
ministry, but equally externally from the ministry, going
through and making sure that we get that right before we put
anything out there.

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati
Lole-Taylor: Will the security and integrity of all
Ministry of Social Development databases now be checked, and
by when?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The chief
executive has got Deloitte doing an independent review. We
are doing it in two phases. The first phase will be on the
immediate problem with the kiosks, what has gone wrong
there, why, what should have been done differently, and what
we need to do immediately to fix it. We estimate that that
should take about 2 weeks. The wider issue of the systems
within the ministry will also be done by Deloitte, but I do
not have an absolute time on that yet until it has done the
original scoping.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek
leave to table a letter from the Minister to Bill English on
the automation of front-line services where she says she
will be monitoring the progress of these plans regularly
with the ministry chief.

Mr SPEAKER:
Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any
objection? [Interruption] Order! There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the
House.

Jacinda Ardern: When did she first
learn the name of who had identified the vulnerabilities in
her department’s system, and did she consider this
relevant information and in the public interest to
know?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the first
part of the question, I was informed on Wednesday afternoon
last week, and at that point, no, I did not feel like it
needed to be made public. We were not sure on the veracity
around it. The ministry itself had started doing checks of
systems but was obviously looking in the wrong
place.

Jacinda Ardern: Why did her
ministerial adviser access the LinkedIn profile of Ira
Bailey on Thursday?

Hon PAULA BENNETT:
Actually, it was on Wednesday, and it is quite common for
someone to google a name when it comes up as a person who
might be looking at the systems.

Jacinda
Ardern: Can she assure the House that neither she
nor her office leaked the name of the person who originally
uncovered this serious breach of privacy?

Hon
PAULA BENNETT: I have answered that before, but I
am happy to do it again for the member. Well, certainly I
did not, and to the best of my knowledge no one in my office
did. There

is a wide range of people who knew that, and if
the member thinks that this is the biggest issue of the day,
I say we have much more serious things to consider than a
side issue like this.

Mr SPEAKER:
Question No. 5, Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga. [Interruption] Order!
I say to the Minister I have called her colleague.
[Interruption] Order! I have called the member’s colleague
and I expect a little courtesy.

Child Poverty,
Abuse, and Neglect—White Paper for Vulnerable
Children

5. Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA
(National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister
for Social

Development: What
children will the White Paper for Vulnerable Children be
targeting?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social
Development): I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I was a
little focused on being called a liar by the member over
there. Right, this paper is focused on this country’s most
vulnerable children: those that have been and are at most
risk of being seriously maltreated. This paper does not
undermine the importance of ensuring universal support to
children, but unless we put a clear focus on these most
vulnerable children, things will not change for
them.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What have the
trends—

Grant Robertson: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister for Social
Development just made a very unparliamentary remark across
the House and I ask that she withdraw and apologise for
it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I actually heard
what the Minister said. I do not want to repeat what she
said, but she did not actually accuse anyone of lying. She
made a comment, a quote from past time that is probably even
on the record of this Parliament already, and I am not about
to rule those words out. But members should
not—[Interruption] Order! Members should not take that as
a being a precedent to call other members liars.
[Interruption] Order! Before I call the member, I ask the
House just to settle down a little, because members may
recollect that the thing that caused the Minister to get a
little offended in the previous question was that she
perceived she had been accused across the House of exactly
that. That is why I just ask the House to come back to a
little more order. I know it has been a tense time. I
understand that; I respect that. It is the House’s right
to be tense at times and to take issues very seriously. That
is absolutely the prerogative of the House, but I think it
is time now for a little more
reasonableness.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga:
What have the trends in child abuse and neglect been since
2004?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Notifications
have increased considerably and continue to do so. Those
notifications that require further action have also
continued to increase. For as much as it can, actually, that
is good news—it means that people are actually reporting
and we are able to do something about it. It means that we
are following up with those children who are potentially
being maltreated. However, Child, Youth and Family has
reported a 4 percent drop in substantiated findings, and
that is the first time we have seen a decrease since
2004.

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati
Lole-Taylor: How can the public have confidence
that information stored in the proposed vulnerable children
information system will be secured, given the recent
security breaches by other departments such as Work and
Income, ACC, and the Inland Revenue
Department?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: For a
number of reasons. One is the time it will take to build it.
The second reason I would give the member is that actually
the mistakes that have happened and that have come out most
recently will certainly be putting a spotlight on this, and
the pressure to get it absolutely 100 percent correct is
well and truly on me. I know that, and I will be following
it with every level of detail. The other thing is that we
will be getting expert advice from the Office of the Privacy
Commissioner and we have asked some of those with ethics
backgrounds to be involved in it as well. So we will work
our way through quite a systematic process to make sure we
get it right.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What
other initiatives in the white paper will make a difference
for our most vulnerable children?

Hon PAULA
BENNETT: Particularly around those children who are
currently in the care of the chief executive and are
currently, or have been, quite seriously abused and
neglected, there are a range of initiatives that we are
going to do for them—for example, expand the number of
specialisttrained caregivers for high-needs and high-risk
teenagers; review the paid parental leave provisions to
ensure that the provisions applying to adoptive parents, and
those taking foster children in, also work for families who
give children a home for life; and extend parent-child
interaction therapy, which is being trialled in Child, Youth
and Family and is proving to be very successful,
particularly in dealing with those children with high and
complex needs.

Schools, Canterbury—Criteria for
Proposed Closures and Mergers

6. CHRIS
HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister
of Education: What specific criteria were used to
determine whether a school in Christchurch was identified
for restoration, consolidation or
rejuvenation?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of
Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. The criteria
for clusters were restore, mainly low-level change;
consolidate, moderate-level change; and rejuvenate, major
change across the cluster. However, it is important to note
that those categories describe learning community clusters,
and not individual schools.

Chris
Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The
Minister’s answer has given me an explanation of what each
of the categories are. I have asked for what the criteria
were in order to put schools within those
categories.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the
member has got a legitimate grievance because the member
actually asked what specific criteria were used to determine
whether a school was identified for restoration,
consolidation, or rejuvenation. The Minister, in answering,
gave criteria for clusters. If she could clarify for the
House whether that applies to individual schools, that would
be helpful because that is what the question
asked.

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Those
identifications—restore, consolidate, and
rejuvenate—relate to learning community clusters, for
which I have given you the criteria. They do not relate to
individual schools.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank
the Minister.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. Schools were specifically listed
in her proposal under one of those headings, and I have
asked the criteria on which they were listed under those
headings. That is a primary question, and it is not an
unreasonable question.

Mr SPEAKER: I
accept absolutely that it is not an unreasonable question,
and that is why I sought clarification from the Minister.
What the Minister seems to be pointing out to the House is
that those three classifications—restoration,
consolidation, or rejuvenation—did not actually apply to
individual schools. As to what the Minister has told the
House, I have got to take the Minister’s answer at face
value. I cannot second-guess that. The Minister has given an
answer to that question.

Hon Trevor
Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I
apologise to my colleague. The member asked for the
criteria, and whether or not it is applied to a school or a
cluster, I am not sure that any criteria were
given.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did. The
Minister in answering the question, if I heard her
correctly, went through the three categories—restoration,
what applied to that; consolidation, what applied to that;
and, rejuvenation, what criteria applied to that. She went
through each one. Admittedly she made it clear those did not
apply to individual schools, and that is why I think there
are some grounds for concern here. But just because the
question asked that information does not mean to say the
question was right in assuming that those categories applied
to each school. The Minister is telling us that they do not,
and I have got to take the Minister’s word at that. The
member may dig further, because it seems the member may have
information that disputes that.

Chris
Hipkins: What specific criteria were used to
identify whether a specific school was proposed for a merger
or a closure?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Sorry,
could the member repeat the supplementary
question?

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member
to repeat his question.

Chris Hipkins: I
will try. What specific criteria were used to identify
whether a specific school, an individual school, was
proposed for a closure or a merger?

Hon HEKIA
PARATA: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The
primary question actually refers quite specifically to the
identification of restoration, consolidation, and
rejuvenation, and I have answered what the criteria were for
that and I have made it clear that it did not apply to
individual schools. We are now on quite a completely
different question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If
I am going to help members on this matter, they should be a
little silent. I think it is not unreasonable—the primary
question asked what specific criteria were used to determine
whether a school in Christchurch was identified for
restoration, consolidation, or rejuvenation. The Minister in
answering that question pointed out those three categories
applied to clusters of schools, so the member has not
unreasonably now dug further into that answer and asked then
what criteria were used to identify schools for, I think his
language was, merger, which is similar to consolidation, or
closure, which is highly relevant to some schools in
Christchurch. That is not an unreasonable supplementary
question, and I am ruling that it is not an unreasonable
supplementary question.

Hon HEKIA PARATA:
There are 215 schools captured by the education renewal
plan; 37 have specific proposals. However, all 215 are
distributed across the three clusters, and each of them have
different and specific criteria that relate to each of them.
That is what—

Hon Members: What are
they?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: For the 215
schools, each of them have a different status. For the
proposals for the 37, the criteria relate to low, moderate,
or high-level impact of the earthquake, to weathertightness
integrity, to functionality of buildings, to rolls falling
or growing, and to movement of population from one area to
another. Those are some of the criteria.

Chris
Hipkins: Were the assessment of earthquake damage
and the likely cost of repair for each of the schools
proposed for merger or closure based on a physical
inspection of each site and building; if so, who conducted
that assessment?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The
assessments were made in a range of ways. Some of them
involved physical assessment by independently contracted
engineers. Some of them involved book assessments. Some of
them involved use of the property management information
database from the schools themselves, and some of them
involved permutations of all three.

Colin
King: Was the change in demographics taken into
account when developing the criteria?

Hon HEKIA
PARATA: Yes, it is a people-related issue. Prior to
the earthquake in 2010 there were 5,000 surplus places in
the Greater Christchurch schools. The latest July roll data
show that 4,300 children have left the area as a result of
the earthquakes. So, obviously, those 9,300 empty places
were one factor that had to be taken into account. In
addition a number of families that have stayed in
Christchurch have moved, which has also impacted on school
rolls.

Chris Hipkins: Was a physical
assessment of the earthquake damage done on each of the
schools that she proposed for merger or closure before she
proposed that; if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA
PARATA: I do not have the specific range of
assessments that were used for each of the
schools.

Tracey Martin: Can the Minister
assure the House that parental elections for boards of
trustees will be held within 6 months of any consolidation
or merger of schools in Christchurch as per the requirements
of the Education Act 1989?

Hon HEKIA
PARATA: We are currently in consultation with all
of the schools that are affected in Christchurch. It is my
expectation, if we get through the process in the time that
has been outlined, that that will be the case. However,
there is some flexibility in the time line depending on the
consultation needs of the process.

Tracey
Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I
apologise. Perhaps I missed it. I understand the time line
around mergers might not be quite clear at the moment, but
my question was whether the elections for boards of trustees
would be held within 6 months of any consolidation or merger
as per the Education Act 1989.

Mr
SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to actually answer
that question.

Hon HEKIA PARATA:
Yes.

Chris Hipkins: Did she review all of
the information prepared by the Ministry of Education on the
likely or estimated cost of repairing schools that she was
intending to propose for merger or closure, before she made
the decision to propose those schools for merger or closure;
if not, why not?

Hon HEKIA PARATA:
Yes.

Government Communications Security
Bureau—Audit

7. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN
(Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister
responsible for the GCSB: What were the dates of
the three cases that the Government Communications Security
Bureau audit highlighted, because they could not assure him
“that the legal position is totally clear”, as referred
to in his statement of 3 October 2012?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY (Minister responsible for the GCSB): I do not
believe it is in the public interest to release the dates of
these cases, which have been referred to the
Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security for review.
It is not yet clear whether there is an issue of illegality
with the cases, and I encourage the members not to jump to
conclusions until the status of the cases is
clear.

Dr Russel Norman: Why is it that
when illegal spying on Kim Dotcom came to light, the
Minister stated that Sir Jerry Mateparae was not in charge
of the Government Communications Security Bureau while it
went on, yet now, by not naming the dates, he is refusing to
identify who was in charge of the Government Communications
Security Bureau?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In the
case of the decision made by the Government Communications
Security Bureau that the particular surveillance on Kim
Dotcom was illegal, that was a known fact at that point, so
it became important, I thought, to clarify that matter. In
these other cases, it is far from certain whether there is
an issue or not.

Dr Russel Norman: Given
that the Prime Minister, by failing to answer this question,
has thrown a question mark over the Governor-General’s
role at the Government Communications Security Bureau, and
that this now means that this scandal has dragged in the
Prime Minister and several Ministers, including the Minister
of Police, is that not another reason for an independent
inquiry to clear up the mess under his watch, and also to
clear Sir Jerry’s name?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: No.

Grant Robertson: Can
the Prime Minister confirm that a camera capable of taking
audiovisual material was on a tripod in the staff cafeteria
at the Government Communications Security Bureau when he
spoke to staff on 29 February?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: I cannot confirm it but I am advised that
there was a camera there. There could certainly be a camera
capable of taking a video—absolutely right. So let us go
through that for the purposes of ensuring that his leader
really hangs himself—

Mr SPEAKER:
Order!

Grant Robertson: I raise a point
of order, Mr Speaker. That was a straight question and the
Prime Minister answered it by confirming that. That was
good.

Hon Members: Point of
order.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Rt Hon
Prime Minister first.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I
have not finished my answer. There is a very specific and
clear and nonpolitical point I need to make to finish my
answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the
Prime Minister should have the opportunity to do that to put
an answer in context, but that should not involve attacking
another party.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When
allegations were made by the Leader of the
Opposition—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Here we
go.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —that there was a
tape—no, I am just running through the details—taken by
the people of the Government Communications Security
Bureau—and I have referred to the quotes earlier—and he
then went on to say that tape had been erased, I took those
allegations very seriously. I went to the head of the
Government Communications Security Bureau. He firstly went
through the use of the tape. It was used on 21 February and
then not used again until April. The bureau then went to
every camera operator that it has, including some who are
currently posted overseas, and confirmed that they did not
take any audiovisual or video of me. Thirdly, we went
through—

Grant Robertson: I raise a
point of order, Mr Speaker. I
asked—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!
This is a point of order.

Grant
Robertson: I asked a specific question to confirm
the specific fact, and the Prime Minister has done that. He
has now gone well beyond that answer.

Mr
SPEAKER: Order! I think, in—[Interruption] Order!
I am on my feet. I think, in fairness—I accept absolutely
that it was a very specific question, but were the Prime
Minister to answer it just like, for example, as I
understand it, “Yes.”, he could be creating an
impression that a live camera was operating at the time. I
do not think it is unreasonable for the Minister—in this
case, the Prime Minister—answering a question to have the
chance to, in answering the question, give further
information as to whether or not there was any chance that
the camera was actually operational at the time. I do not
think that is unreasonable, because if we are genuinely
interested in the real facts and the truth, that cannot be
wrong. What would be wrong would be to restrict the
Minister’s answer in a way that implied something else.
That is why I will not allow the Prime Minister to attack
the Leader of the Opposition, but if he gives information
around that camera I see nothing wrong with
that.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Just to recap, a
situation was taken where we looked at the logs of when the
camera was used. We then looked at the situation about
speaking to every one of the camera operators to ask them
whether they ever used the camera. They had not. The head of
the Government Communications Security Bureau then went on
to look at all of the logs about whether there was any
deletion of any audio material. There was not. To satisfy
himself—and let us understand this: this is a spy agency.
We do not delete things; we archive them. They went right
back to the ultimate source document and asked themselves
that question: has there ever been a deletion? The answer
was no. There was no tape taken by the Government
Communications Security Bureau. The Leader of the
Opposition—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!
No, I think—[Interruption] Order! It was perfectly
reasonable for the Prime Minister to be able to put that
answer in context, but he should not go on now to criticise
the Leader of the Opposition. Question—[Interruption]
Order!

Question No. 8 to
Minister

Mr SPEAKER: We come
now, because the Rt Hon Winston Peters is not here for
question No. 8, to question No. 9.

Civil Defence
Emergency Management Earthquake
Review—Response

9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL
(Labour—Christchurch East) to the
Minister of Civil Defence: Why did he
reject the independent Civil Defence Emergency Management
earthquake review’s recommendation, which was made in
response to the finding that duplication of control was
“not only inefficient but put people and property at
risk”, and that “the same situation could arise in a
number of different parts of New Zealand”?

Hon
CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Civil Defence): Just so
that we are clear about the recommendation, the
recommendation was that civil defence emergency management
groups, not territorial local authorities, should lead and
control the response to emergencies. To specifically answer
the member’s question and give the reasons for rejecting
the recommendation, firstly, it was that most emergencies
are short term in this country, and they are localised and
best controlled at a local level. Secondly, civil defence
emergency management group controllers already have the
legal power to control the response to local emergencies if
necessary. Thirdly, the ministry has already commenced a
capability assessment framework to focus on improving
leadership and governance not only in Christchurch, but
across the nation.

Hon Lianne Dalziel:
Did he factor into his decision the fact that the Wellington
regional territorial authorities have adopted precisely the
model recommended by the independent review on the basis
that “disasters don’t abide by territorial boundaries
…”, and that “A shared approach to emergency
management will enable our communities to be better prepared
and will provide an ability to share resources to best
effect.”; if so, what does he know that they do
not?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: That is an
excellent question. In fact, the response by the Wellington
civil defence regional group was, as part of the capability
assessment framework, the recommendations that came from
that framework assessment as well. Christchurch is a part of
that, and there were recommendations on that point to the
Christchurch group as well.

Hon Lianne
Dalziel: When did his ministry first become aware
of the situational and local political factors between
Christchurch City and the Canterbury civil defence emergency
management group given that they had been through the same
analysis that Wellington had been through prior to the 2010
earthquake, and what steps were taken to address these
before people and property were put at risk?

Hon
CHRIS TREMAIN: Pre-empting that particular question
I looked for specific dates. The capability review process
was commenced in early 2010—that was before the first
earthquake—it was finished in August 2010, and I
understand that it was given to the chair of the group on or
about 3 September, a day or so before the earthquake. So
they were aware of it, but they did not really have any
opportunity to introduce the recommendations.

Hon
Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr
Speaker. My question was specifically when did his ministry
first become aware? It was not a question about the local
group.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister
did actually indicate that date. If I remember correctly he
said some date in August.

Louise Upston:
What positive aspects of the response were highlighted by
the civil defence review?

Hon CHRIS
TREMAIN: The report concludes that police, fire,
ambulance, defence, civil defence, health services, and
lifelines maintained control, rescued the injured, and kept
the public safe. The courageous efforts of emergency
services and volunteer groups were commended by the
reviewers. The earthquake was an unprecedented challenge,
but overall the report concludes that the emergency response
worked very well.

War Pensions, Law Commission
Report—Government Response

10. MIKE
SABIN (National—Northland) to the
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: What is
the Government doing to improve the support and recognition
given to veterans?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of
Veterans’ Affairs): Yesterday the Prime Minister
announced the Government’s response to the Law
Commission’s review of the War Pensions Act 1954. The
package adopts in full or in part 132 of the 170
recommendations and provides new funding of $60 million over
the next 5 years to implement these changes. The major
changes include new and updated legislation, replacing the
War Pensions Act 1954 with the introduction of two coverage
schemes; an increase of 5 percent plus the annual CPI
adjustment, forecast to be around 1.8 percent, bringing the
increase close to 7 percent, which would occur from 1 April
next year, for the war disablement and surviving spouse
pensions; increased eligibility for support services such as
home help and lawnmowing; and also new veterans weekly
income compensation for veterans under the age of retirement
and unable to work. I am proud of this very comprehensive
package.

Mike Sabin: When will these
changes take effect?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The
5 percent increase, including the annual CPI adjustment to
the war disablement and surviving spouse pensions, will take
effect from 1 April 2013. The bill to enact the other
changes is currently being drafted and will be introduced to
Parliament as soon as practicable. We will listen carefully
to veterans and other members of the public through the
select committee process. Our aim is for most of the changes
to begin from 1 July 2014.

Andrew
Williams: As the Government has announced that it
will adopt 132 of 170 recommendations of the Law Commission
review of the War Pensions Act 1954, what do the other 38
recommendations encompass, and what is the ongoing status
and future of those remaining 38
recommendations?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not
want the Minister to speak too long in answering
that.

Hon NATHAN GUY: I am happy to go
through those in some detail. The member has come into my
office this week; I think that would be the appropriate time
to have that discussion. But, in essence, Cabinet made a
very good decision to support veterans, who have done an
amazing amount of service for New Zealand. We are very
mindful of the fact that the Law Commission took 3 years to
draw up 170 recommendations that were uncosted. Of course,
12 Government departments had to work through that process
of doing the robust costings. I took the proposals through
to Cabinet and I believe we have ended up at the right place
in supporting veterans into the future.

Andrew
Williams: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We
do not need to have the full details, but even a brief
overview—

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the
member’s point. He asked what the 38 recommendations were
that were not picked up by the Government. I did not want
the Minister to go through all 38, but some flavour of some
example might have been helpful to answer the
question.

Hon NATHAN GUY: One that was,
unfortunately, not included was an increase in the funeral
grant; currently veterans do get a funeral grant but it is
less than ACC recipients currently get. Cabinet also made a
decision about one of the recommendations, which was free
medical care for those over 80. In essence, Cabinet decided
that we should be supporting veterans in need, not in
particular to their age. That gives you a flavour of some of
the examples that we could not fund. I think the important
thing is, in very tight economic times, that this is a very
good package of $60 million supporting veterans now and into
the future.

Andrew Williams: How will the
Minister ensure improved outcomes for veterans, when many of
those affected state that Veterans Affairs New Zealand,
otherwise known as VANZ, continues at times to provide
inconsistent advice and responses that are often illogical,
poorly timed, abusive, offensive, and lacking any duty of
care to the veterans?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I
do not agree with those assertions. It was interesting that
when this Government came in at the end of 2008 there was a
backlog of 11,820 claims waiting to be considered. That is
an embarrassment. They had been waiting for 6 months.
Veterans Affairs, under a decent Government regime, has
turned that round and now we do not have a backlog of
claims.

The member should stand up and applaud the
direction of this Government to ensure that we are
supporting veterans.

Hon John
Banks—Confidence

11. GRANT ROBERTSON
(Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime
Minister: Does he have confidence in Hon John
Banks; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime
Minister): Yes; because he is a hard-working
Minister.

Grant Robertson: Is it still
his policy, as he told media on 30 April this year, that a
Minister who lies or misleads about his actions would lose
his confidence as Prime Minister?

Rt Hon JOHN
KEY: Yes.

Grant Robertson: Does
he think Mr Banks has met this standard, after he told the
New Zealand Herald on 14 September that the police were
responsible for his witness statement being withheld when,
in fact, it was he who asked for it to be
withheld?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no
knowledge of that. That is a matter for the
Minister.

Grant Robertson: I seek the
leave of the House to table a letter from David P H Jones
QC, Mr Banks’ lawyer, to the New Zealand Police, dated 10
August 2012, which says that disclosure of any material
relating to Mr Banks is opposed.

Mr
SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is
there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by
leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Grant
Robertson: Why is he hanging on to John Banks as a
Minister, when sworn witness statements of others, and Mr
Banks’ own actions, show that he has lied to New
Zealanders, or is the Prime Minister simply prepared to put
his own political interests ahead of the high ethical
standards New Zealanders expect of Ministers?

Rt
Hon JOHN KEY: Because I accept the member’s word
that he has complied with the law.

Earthquake
Commission—Objective of Government
Review

12. NICKY WAGNER
(National—Christchurch Central) to the
Minister responsible for

the
Earthquake Commission: What is the objective of the
Government review of the EQC?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE
(Minister responsible for the Earthquake
Commission): Recently the Minister of Finance and I
announced a review, with the objectives of learning the
lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes for New Zealand
disaster insurance arrangements. The Canterbury earthquakes
have generated 698,215 exposures for the Earthquake
Commission, and this has proved to be the biggest test of
the current legislation since it came into operation in
1993. The commission has been an important part of the
Government’s overall management of disaster risk and
recovery in New Zealand, and the review will ensure that the
legislation provides the best possible protection for New
Zealanders’ homes in the future.

Nicky
Wagner: What will the review focus
on?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The review will
focus on what types of property the Earthquake Commission
insures, including structures that are built and the extent
of Earthquake Commission cover for land; how the Earthquake
Commission prices its insurance; the institutional structure
and design of the Earthquake Commission itself, including
its roles; and the financial management of the Crown’s
risk and its exposure and how that should be financed moving
forward.

(Universalisation of In-work Tax
Credit) Amendment Bill: What is the purpose of the
Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit)
Amendment Bill?

METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge
of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work
Tax

Credit) Amendment Bill): The
purpose of the bill is to transform the in-work tax credit
into a child payment for the poorest New Zealanders and
their children. The payment will apply to New Zealand
families whose incomes fall below a certain threshold,
whether they are in work or receiving a student allowance, a
benefit, or New Zealand superannuation, and will assist in
bringing 100,000 New Zealand children out of the severe
poverty that they currently suffer. Every child is entitled
to a good life and a fair future, and my bill will make sure
the poorest kids get that same opportunity to enjoy those
rights.

Holly Walker: Does she agree with
the Prime Minister’s statement that the bill will give
rich families even more money; if not, why
not?

METIRIA TUREI: No, the Prime
Minister is wrong. The payment will be available to the
poorest New Zealand families, not the richest, as my bill
ensures that the means test will stay in place. My bill is a
step towards a universal child payment, as recommended by
the report of the Children’s
Commissioner.

Income Tax (Universalisation of
In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill—Effect on
Working

for
Families

2. HOLLY WALKER (Green)
to the Member in charge of the Income
Tax

(Universalisation of In-work Tax
Credit) Amendment Bill: Does the Income Tax
(Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill
attempt to fix discrimination in the current Working for
Families tax credit scheme?

METIRIA TUREI (Member
in charge of the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work
Tax

Credit) Amendment Bill):
Yes, it does. The Human Rights Commission has found that the
current in-work tax credit discriminates against the poorest
families on the basis of income source. That is because poor
families on benefits, student allowances, or superannuation
do not receive the payment, but those who work a minimum of
20 hours do. That is discrimination under New Zealand law on
the basis of employment status.

Holly
Walker: Is this discrimination acceptable, given
that 270,000 children in New Zealand live in severe
poverty?

METIRIA TUREI: No, it is not
acceptable, and New Zealanders do not believe it is
acceptable, either. Any policy that leaves 270,000 Kiwi
children in severe poverty—the highest number that New
Zealand has seen since the early 1990s—is deeply unjust.
The Child Poverty Action Group is appealing a recent
decision of the High Court in this matter, and I hope the
appeal is successful, as no child should be discriminated
against in New Zealand law.

(Universalisation of
In-work Tax Credit) Amendment Bill: What reports
has she seen relating to reform of the In-work Tax Credit
through the Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work Tax
Credit) Amendment Bill as a measure to address child
poverty?

METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the
Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work
Tax

Credit) Amendment Bill): The
recent report of the Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to
Child Poverty for the Children’s Commissioner notes that
my bill is before Parliament, and welcomes the opportunity
for a debate on child-related benefits. I also note that
working paper No. 10 accompanying that report recommends
that the hours worked test in the in-work tax credit regime
be removed. My bill does as that working paper suggests. I
have also read reports by Professor Susan St John of
Auckland University, who says that my bill “provides a
practical and just way to make an immediate difference to
New Zealand’s disgraceful child poverty problem.”, and
that “There are many … ways to make work pay that
don’t involve punishing the poorest children.”

Holly Walker: What reports has she seen
about the impact of the in-work tax credit on poverty rates
overall?

METIRIA TUREI: I have read
Government reports stating that the in-work tax credit has
been responsible for halving poverty among children whose
parents meet the work hours requirement— halving it to
just 8 percent. These same reports reveal that poverty among
the children of beneficiaries has remained unaffected at 70
percent. My bill would give those children the opportunity
to have a good life and a better, fairer future, which the
children of working parents have.

(Universalisation of In-work Tax
Credit) Amendment Bill: Has she received any advice
on other parties’ support for the Income Tax
(Universalisation of In-work Tax Credit) Amendment
Bill?

METIRIA TUREI (Member in charge of the
Income Tax (Universalisation of In-work
Tax

Credit) Amendment Bill): The
Māori Party, New Zealand First, and the Mana party are all
supporting the bill. Labour has agreed to support it at its
first reading. I want to thank those parties for their
support.

Holly Walker: Is that sufficient
support for the bill to pass?

METIRIA
TUREI: Unfortunately for New Zealand’s poorest
children, it is not sufficient. I have asked Peter Dunne to
consider various options for supporting the bill, but I am
advised by his office that he does not consider that the
Government can afford to assist the poorest children in New
Zealand. Given that the cost of leaving these kids in
poverty is estimated at $6 billion a year, I would have
thought that $300 million to $400 million for these poorest
kids was an investment—a wise and just investment—in
them and their futures.

Supposedly, Winston Peters’ victory in Northland has exposed the simmering dissatisfaction with the government that exists out in the provinces. Yet it remains to be seen whether this defeat will have much significance – and not simply because if and when Labour resumes business as usual in the Northland seat at the next election, Peters’ hold on it could simply evaporate.

On Saturday, National’s electorate vote declined by 7,000 votes, as the 9,000 majority it won last September turned into a 4,000 vote deficit – mainly because Labour supporters followed the nod and wink given by Labour leader Andrew Little, and voted tactically for Peters. In the process, Labour’s vote went down from nearly 9,000 votes six months ago, to only 1,315 on Saturday. More>>

The National Party Government has today revealed that the national environmental report topics for this year will, incredibly, exclude New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, the Green Party said today. More>>

ALSO:

Reports that German privacy laws may have contributed to the Germanwings air crash have prompted New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner to reassure the public that the Privacy Act is no impediment to medical practitioners notifying appropriate authorities to a pilot’s health concerns. More>>

The settlement includes a $13.5 million payment the government made in June 2013, as well as land in the Taranaki region. The settlement also includes four culturally significant sites, the Waipakari Reserve, Te Kohinga Reserve, Te Ngutu o te Manu and Te Poho o Taranaki. More>>

Supposedly, New Zealand’s destiny lies in Asia, and that was one of Foreign Minister Murray McCully’s rationales for his bungled reforms at MFAT. OK. So, if that’s the case why didn’t Prime Minister John Key attend the state funeral on Sunday of Singapore’s founding leader Lee Kuan Yew? More>>

The panel choosing the flag options has no visual artists at all. Now, I’ve kerned the odd ligature in my time and I know my recto from my French curve so I thought I’d offer a few suggestions before they get past their depth. More>>

ALSO:

In releasing two reports today, the Independent Police Conduct Authority has highlighted a number of significant problems with the way in which Police deal with people who are detained in Police cells. More>>

The complaints follow recent public allegations about GCSB activities. The complaints, and these public allegations, raise wider questions regarding the collection, retention and sharing of communications data. More>>

ALSO:

Professor Jane Kelsey: ‘As anticipated, the deal gives foreign investors from the TPPA countries special rights, and the power to sue the government in private offshore tribunals for massive damages if new laws, or even court decisions, significantly affected their bottom line’. More>>

Gordon Campbell: The myth of competence that’s been woven around Steven Joyce – the Key government’s “Minister of Everything” and “Mr Fixit” – has been disseminated from high-rises to hamlets, across the country... More>>